D&D 5E What direction should 5th edition take?

[Nifft]

No one said a versatile rules were easy to design (would I spend money on it if were?).. permutations are frequently serious, allowing the users choices to be based on informed decisions is then the game designers responsibility.

I would like to see signs that lower player count games were supported in some fashion (it doesnt have to be a primary design goal just a nod)

IMHO a properly modular design could take many permutations into consideration, and could explicitly tell you the consequences of choosing different combinations.

For example, a small change in how 'bloodied' affects the target could result in a far grittier feel than the default rules (e.g. wound/vitality). Some people like grittier games: they should be supported.

Same thing for smaller (or larger) groups.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

There is a section of the DMG devoted to this, even mentioning what roles to use in such a party -and why they suggest them-.

I very well could have missed something as I pretty splash around my reading of game books (they feel like too much work if I do the linear route)

Text I found in the DMG is so small it could be very nearly be quoted verbatem in under "fair use" provisions... an itty bitty comment about combat encounters being more difficult even if scaled down. And the paragraphs covering about half a page about missing roles

Hmmmmmm this does not even qualify as a nod.(its more of a Warning).

And even when it mentions Allies as extra characters there isn't even a mention low player count as a potential reason ;-) maybe that is too obvious of reason -- no need to hit people over the head with obvious I guess, but still its pretty easy to read that as "your game style not supported".

Do any of them modules have notes about how you might adjust them for lower party size? That would be evidence.

 

[Garthanos]

IMHO a properly modular design could take many permutations into consideration, and could explicitly tell you the consequences of choosing different combinations.

For example, a small change in how 'bloodied' affects the target could result in a far grittier feel than the default rules (e.g. wound/vitality). Some people like grittier games: they should be supported.

Same thing for smaller (or larger) groups.

Cheers, -- N

No arguments here on that regards...

Minions as supporting cast to buttress up a smaller group? Associating those minions with abilities of the heros... sure could be one way to have smaller groups able to exploit some of 4e's strategic movement features.

 

[Reigan]

I don't understand these sort of threads. A lot of these suggestions could be adopted as new or alternative rules within 4e or would be better of in the Paizo forums under Pathfinder 2.

 

[invokethehojo]

IMHO a properly modular design could take many permutations into consideration, and could explicitly tell you the consequences of choosing different combinations.

For example, a small change in how 'bloodied' affects the target could result in a far grittier feel than the default rules (e.g. wound/vitality). Some people like grittier games: they should be supported.

Same thing for smaller (or larger) groups.

Cheers, -- N

Good idea on the smaller groups. As a DM or player my ideal party is 3 -4, combat moves fast and there are less enemies to track. You can do this in 4e, but the game is clearly tilted in favor of large parties when it comes to encounter design. Try to make a decent encounter for a party of 3 first level characters, it's tough.

 

[invokethehojo]

I don't understand these sort of threads. A lot of these suggestions could be adopted as new or alternative rules within 4e or would be better of in the Paizo forums under Pathfinder 2.

They could be applied as new or alternative rules to 4e, but we are discussing this hoping Wotc will take notice and take our opinions into consideration (at least that's why I'm doing it), and I doubt they are going to release a 4.5e, so the best I can hope for is that they use some of this in the next edition.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't understand these sort of threads. A lot of these suggestions could be adopted as new or alternative rules within 4e or would be better of in the Paizo forums under Pathfinder 2.

Most of these are generalized ideas and so they do have some "....could be used elsewhere elements to them". That said. I also think 4E is very much extendable like XML, I think very few of the things would absolutely require a new edition.

 

[Squizzle]

Some people like grittier games: they should be supported.

I disagree wholly. The core rules should not try to be all things to all people; they should pick a play experience they want to foster, and create a system to promote and support that sort of experience. There are dozens and dozens of roleplaying systems available, and each should be free to concentrate on strengths first. The best thing about 4E is that it's designed from a "system matters" perspective.

 

[Tai]

I disagree wholly. The core rules should not try to be all things to all people; they should pick a play experience they want to foster, and create a system to promote and support that sort of experience. There are dozens and dozens of roleplaying systems available, and each should be free to concentrate on strengths first. The best thing about 4E is that it's designed from a "system matters" perspective.

I'm with him on this. There are plenty of games where getting into a fight means there's a very real chance of you dying of tetanus in a week's time, but a lot of people don't want to play that game, and universal systems are less good than bespoke systems - you can tell, because otherwise we'd use them for everything. So, they took a high fantasy, combat-heavy concept and made a very good system for it. It doesn't make coffee either, but that doesn't mean you should modify the game book to have a coffee machine in it...

 

[Garthanos]

I do prefer extensions that build on what is there in ways that fit.... the cinematic wound rules I mentioned... expanding usage of minions so that lower player count games are better supported. So my thinking is only ever put in a coffee machine if you can find a reasonable and elegant way to make it fit, this does not preclude a branching set of system options... nor does it imply system doesn't matter, to the contrary those people not feeling supported will explain that too, just that excessive focus can make for a narrower audience and in the end a lower profit margin.. So long as you can expand your target without doing disservice to what you have already done it becomes a win win, situation.